A Christmas Thought About Guns

As I continue to think about guns, it seems to me that there are three questions that need to be kept distinct. Well, actually, there are more than three, but these seem to be the key ones right now.

What kinds of firearms are private citizens guaranteed the right to own by the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution?

To what extent, in America today, is a highly armed citizenry necessary?

To what extent is a highly armed citizenry intrinsically desirable?

I think we could have a better conversation about guns if we kept those questions distinct from one another. (Note also that I’m talking only about guns for non-sporting purposes.)

Regarding the first: If the Second Amendment doesn’t refer primarily or exclusively to the arming of militias but applies to private citizens, and “arms” means pretty much anything you can fire, then it doesn’t matter whether you or I enjoy living in a highly armed society: anybody who wants to turn his house into an armory has the right to do so. Only a Constitutional Amendment could change that. (For the record, I don’t share that interpretation of the Second Amendment, even though I’m a lifelong user and owner of guns, but that’s not the topic of this post.)

It’s only if we can, within the bounds of the Constitution, make significant changes to our gun laws that the problem arises of whether we should. And that leads to Question 2.

It’s clear from the comments I’ve been reading on various blog posts, on this site and elsewhere, that many people believe a highly armed citizenry is necessary because they believe that America is descending into social chaos. Now it’s true that violent crime rose last year — but that’s after a twenty-year decline. So violence is going to have to rise a good deal to get us back to where we were when George H. W. Bush left office. That doesn’t look like a descent into social chaos to me, but we could have a debate about that. We’d need to evaluate the evidence with care.

It’s the third question that I want to emphasize this Christmas Day.

I’m a Christian, and as such I am enjoined to pray and hope for the coming reign of the Prince of Peace. Christians might disagree about how and when that Kingdom is going to come about, but we must pray for it and seek it without all our hearts. We should look forward always to the the reign of shalom, as laid out in Isaiah 65. It is not, then, intrinsically desirable that we should be armed; it is, rather, intrinsically desirable that we should all live in the Kingdom of God where no weapons are needed because we live in mutual love and have our needs provided by the Lord.

Maybe that doesn’t even need to be said; maybe nobody really thinks an armed society is ipso facto a better society, even though some folks can sound that way at times. If so, then please just take this post as a reminder that if it is, or becomes, necessary for Americans to be regularly and publicly armed, that’s a sign of the tragic brokenness of a world populated by fallen people.

And fallenness is, in my theology, a trait universally shared: I’d feel a lot better about the rhetoric of the strongest proponents of an armed society if they admitted that, law-abiding and responsible though they may be, they’re as vulnerable to temptation as anyone else. In this debate I’ve heard people talk about “human corruption” and “original sin,” but always in reference to other people.

A hundred years ago or so, a newspaper editor asked a number of English intellectual leaders for their answer to the question “What’s wrong with the world?” The most interesting and accurate reply was this one:

Dear Sirs,

I am.

Sincerely yours,

G.K. Chesterton

Today, you and I are what’s wrong. As much as I’d like to believe that guns would be no problem if everyone were just like me, in my heart I know better. Or ought to.

In one of his last speeches as Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams recently said,

People use guns. But in a sense guns use people, too. When we have the technology for violence easily to hand, our choices are skewed and we are more vulnerable to being manipulated into violent action.

Perhaps that’s why, in a passage often heard in church around this time of year, the Bible imagines a world where swords are beaten into ploughshares. In the new world which the newborn child of Christmas brings into being, weapons are not left to hang on the wall, suggesting all the time that the right thing to do might after all be to use them. They are decommissioned, knocked out of shape, put to work for something totally different.

Control of the arms trade, whether for individuals or for nations, won’t in itself stop the impulse to violence and slaughter. But it’s a start in changing what’s taken for granted. The good news of Christmas is that the atmosphere of fear and hostility isn’t the natural climate for human beings, and it can be changed.

If all you have is a gun, everything looks like a target. But if all you have is the child’s openness and willingness to be loved, everything looks like a promise. Control of the weapons trade is a start. But what will really make the difference is dealing with fear and the pressure to release our anxiety and tension at the expense of others. A new heart, a new spirit, as the Bible says; so that peace on earth won’t be an empty hope.

That’s what I believe too. May shalom come, and may the Prince of Peace reign forever and ever.

UPDATE: My friend David Ryan, captain of the Mon Tiki and one of the Ordinary Gentlemen, has given me permission to post this excerpt from an email he sent me today:

It seems to me that one of the things that Tolkien and others of the writers you admire were concerned with was the effect of industrialization on culture, and if the Fire Arms Act of 1968 can (to a certain degree) be understood as being an expression of anxieties about race vis-a-vis firearms, the Fire Arms act of 1934 (which, among other things, restricted possession of machine guns) can be understood as being (partly) a response to concerns about mechanization.

My mind is changed about high capacity magazines. I had found sanctuary in the belief that the crucial distinction was semiautomatic fire vs. automatic fire; i.e., the Thompson machine gun had a 30 round mag, but was capable of automatic fire, and therefore should be restricted, where as an AR-15, also with a 30 shot magazine, is only capable of semiautomatic fire and therefore is a perfectly reasonable weapon for law-abiding citizens to own.

But two things have changed my mind.

One is that I’ve learned that militaries around the world concur that in the hands of the average trooper in most situations, an assault rifle with semi-automatic fire is deadlier than a Thompson with automatic fire. This is simple fact.

Two, at a certain point it doesn’t matter what is reasonable for the law-abiding citizen; what matters is how much power does this put in the hands of a bad actor (email being an excellent example of what happens when this aspect is not accounted for). I had an email back and forth with [a friend] where she argued that AR15s are rarely used to commit crimes. My simple response is that dynamite is also rarely used to commit crimes.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 29 comments

29 Responses to A Christmas Thought About Guns

RE: Now it’s true that violent crime rose last year — but that’s after a twenty-year decline. So violence is going to have to rise a good deal to get us back to where we were when George H. W. Bush left office.

Could it be that the increase in the amount of guns and concealed carry has made violent crime a more dangerous option for criminals? ( IE when they consider the risk/reward potential of their crimes they say, “I’m out,” and they decide to take up some other line of work (like simple property theft instead of assault).) In other words, despite the decrease in wealth in our society, which normally would be associated with increased crime, has the wide distribution of guns (and people carrying them) made violent crime decrease?

Totally agreed about the undesirability of a well-armed citizenry, as such. Maybe it’s just the “neighborhood” I live in, but I’m more scared of militias than of states. This ain’t 1787.

That said, you left out what I think is the main issue: private, not public, protection. As you’ve said before, America is a relatively peaceful, high-trust, civic-minded society. Because of that, I think, we can trust private persons to own and carry guns for their own protection.

Pet peeve: What is it with some Protestants and the Hebrew word shalom? English has a good translation: “peace.” It’s a much better translation than of lots of other biblical translations. Isaiah wrote the chapter you cite without using the word shalom even once. If Isaiah can talk about what you call the “reign of shalom” without using the Hebrew word shalom, then why can’t American Protestants?

Aaron, those of us who use the term do so because the English word “peace” doesn’t necessarily convey the presence of God’s perfect justice that is intrinsic to the semantic range of shalom. “Peace” just isn’t sufficient without added explanation.

This happens with other complex terms in other languages. For example, “happiness” just won’t do for the Greek eudaimonia, so philosophers often use the original.

There is, I guess, some strain of conservatism that says “just because I have the right to do something, doesn’t mean I should.”

The first amendment guarantees might right to say just about anything of a political nature. I can use that right in a productive or a destructive way.

And so, I propose, it should be with gun ownership and any number of other activities that may or may not increase the level of violence in our society. Get rid of your guns, stop going to see violent movies, quit buying violent video games. I defend everyone’s right to own guns and do all those things, but I wish we would all make a personal choice not to.

It may not save even one life, but so what? Culture can only be changed if we decide to do it.

As to point one, at the time the 2nd amendment was written, the militia and private citizens (more specifically free white adult males) were one and the same. In their aversion to a standing army, the Founders thought-or at least hoped-militias (often locally self-appointed and organized) would suffice to defend the country from invasion. And they intended them to defend the states against federal “tyranny”, presumably in the form of federal troops or police.
But even when both sides were equally armed with flintlock muskets, that didn’t work out too well for armed citizens, e.g. the Whiskey Rebellion and Shays Rebellion. Maybe if an entire state government resisted federal laws it might work out differently, but nowadays with no organized (“well-regulated”) militias, the National Guard would have to mutiny against presidential orders to be federalized. So while the original intent behind the 2nd amendment has become moot, the Supreme Court has decreed it protects an individual right to own some sort of guns, specifically handguns in the case of the District of Columbia. Exactly what kind beyond that is a matter of politics to decide. But as a matter of practical fact, a household full of AR15s wouldn’t withstand an assault by an array of police forces, from the FBI and ATF to local SWAT teams. Just ask Randy Weaver or the Branch Davidians.

So we’ll pass some symbolic and ineffectual laws against arbitrarily selected “scary looking” guns, then be shocked and horrified when the next massacre occurs, as it surely will.

I concur with your thoughts on the third question. If we are truly in the twilight of our civilization, there’s little left but to pray and tend our own gardens ( in at best a local, family and communitarian sense).

Cui Bono? It’s hard to have a reasonable and thoughtful discussion as listed above without considering who benefits from the continued arming of our nation. How difficult would it be for the United States to take the lofty position decrying gun violence when we supply the world with more armaments than pretty much any other group of countries put together? Until you take the MONEY out of the equation, there will never be a real discussion in regards to guns. Hell, there will never be a real discussion in regards to health care, foreign adventurism, social security and tax treatment, or anything else other than the most superficial window dressing for the same reason. Someone other than you makes money off of the way things are today.

My concern with your point is that we reach a point of mutually assured destruction with the “Bad Guys.” That is, gun technology increases, and suddenly if I want to be safe, I need an automatic weapon in my home because who knows what the other guy will have.

Additionally, Mr. Jacobs is asking that we do get to the bottom of the decline in violence without just resorting to saying “oh, it’s probably because the citizenry has more guns.” That may in fact be the case, but let’s analyze the data before we make any conclusions. I suspect there are a large number of factors at work.

Moot is a strong word. The Dick Act (militia act of 1903) may have integrated state forces under the federal umbrella, but it also certified all unaffliated males as members of the “unorganized militia.” Federalization here simply is extending the chain of command all the way to the CINC, with all the nasty consequences in place if a given force disobeys orders from on high.

However, if a state force rebels against Washington and doesn’t succeed – whether the charge is treason, insurrection, or insubordination isn’t gonna make much difference.

In the spirit of the season, I must point out there is a difference between gun control/confiscation and disarmament. Christ taught that the damage of sin begins in the heart before the action takes place. Gun control doesn’t contribute to Christian peace any more than an empty wallet combats illicit drug use. By the same token, a rifle looks like a tool of war to you, but to Desmond Doss it made a handy splint. Men can’t legislate shalom.

You ask, “What kinds of firearms are private citizens guaranteed the right to own by the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution?” Actually, the text of the amendment, just like the text of various others in the Bill of Rights, doesn’t guarantee any rights at all. It merely acknowledges that a pre-existing right shall not be abridged. The wording is important: the “government” does not give or guarantee rights. Rights such as freedom of speech and religion and bearing arms are ours because we are human (or at least citizens). At least, that’s what the Framers seem to be indicating.

Thinking outside of personal and property defense the most practical application of the second amendment is arms that could be used collectively by local citizens for community defense. If there is a natural disaster, an attack with mass casualty weapons or the break down of government there could be the need for citizens to cooperate to maintain order and defense against criminals who may be inclined to take advantage of disorder; until order can be restored by local and national agencies.

But there are other more anxiety provoking reasons driving a desire of many desire to maintain arms?

No one can predict what will happen with our nation. We have never been in a similar situation economically and the present course will likely result in an economic disaster. We may be past the point of no return and our current political leadership does not seem to have a desire to make the hard actions necessary to turn this around. There seems to be no one left with the courage or talent to make difficult decisions. Perhaps those with the courage and talent are smart enough to know that taking a stand is futile and only bring risk so they have wisely abandoned the public square.

As the economy collapses hopefully our federal government will decentralizes and states regain sovereignty and the federal government begin taking a limited role as designed by the constitution. More unlikely, but what many fear, is a period unrest and violence with power becoming concentrated into a new government, not limited by the restraints of our Constitution.

If decentralization occurs and a community limited with resources based upon a local economy , there could be a role for a well armed and regulated militia that can be called out to support local law enforcement in a community that may be unable to afford the cost of maintaining a large police department. During the colonial period, if the Marshal issued an arrest warrant he had the option of mustering the local militia to assist; then after the apprehension, the militia would demobilize.

If a despotic government emerges and weapons confiscation begins; something to consider is that the government may believe that those willing to store arms also have the ability and willingness to use these weapons; which could make this individual seem as threatening to the government as the weapon itself.

“One is that I’ve learned that militaries around the world concur that in the hands of the average trooper in most situations, an assault rifle with semi-automatic fire is deadlier than a Thompson with automatic fire. This is simple fact.”

This is interesting, but I suspect all it shows is that troopers actually take aim when using a semi-auto. It also leads to the implausible conclusion that banning semi-autos and opening up the market to fully automatic firearms would reduce body counts.

It seems clear, especially as one reads the different early versions of what became the second amendment, that the article refers to militias, the traditional English means of defense of the homeland against foreign invasion. The militias were not so much conceived of as a defense against the armed forces of a tyrannical government, but rather a substitute for the standing army that makes a tyrannical government possible.

It rests, however, on the assumption of a natural right to own firearms for personal defense.

And as usual, our federal system complicates things even more. Many state constitutions contain similar provisions, some acknowledging individual defense, some not:

In a thread on Dreher’s blog addressing this issue, I was reminded that at least two of Christ’s disciples were ‘packing’ — carrying swords. Christ was not anti-weapon. He didn’t even demand that the Centurion, representative of an empire occupying his homeland, give up his martial trade.

The three questions you ask are great to ask, if we were starting a brand new country and setting laws for citizen firearm ownership.

Bottom-line, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. It’s about the ability of the people to resist a tyrannical government. The reality about that though is how resistant can the citizenry really be in the era of armed drones and C130 gun-ships. The moment a group of people have decided to resist, they will be labeled domestic terrorists and they would be mowed down by the US Military.

I would like to see some sort of official 2nd Amendment Citizens Militia established. Obama floated the idea out there of having a Civilian Security Force. I suggest this because lots of people have firearms because they are concerned about SHTF scenarios like economic collapse. That’s what the Newtown Shooter’s Mom feared. I think it would be better for the country to have all of us working to maintain order in the event of a serious emergency rather than having chaos. I’ve met chaos once at a local army\navy store. They were “purchasing gear for their militia group.” These guys would be the ones running around acting like they are in charge which is a scary prospect. I also work in the Data Communications Field, so I might have useful skills that could be called upon in an emergency. I would support the idea that you could not own a military-style semi-automatic unless you belonged to this group.

M_Young, consider the context: two swords among twelve is not a well-armed band, but Jesus replied “it is enough”–enough for what, one must ask? To fulfill the purpose of having the swords: that He be “numbered among transgressors” (Luke 22:37).

Second, when one of the disciples actually used a sword to fight against an unjust governmental action, Jesus told him to stop and healed the victim of the attack (Luke 22:50-51).

Of course gun ownership would be unnecessary in an ideal world. The problem is that what constitutes an ideal world varies and that some people are willing to use the corrupt force of government (and religion) to impose THIER concept of an ideal world on all others.

Heinlein said it best when he said all political and religious labels are false. People divide into two fundamental categories. Those who believe humans should be controlled and those who have no desire. As long as first group exist, people in the second group will always need weapons for self defense.

You have to take a wider historical perspective than the last year, news, or election cycle to appreciate the case for having an armed citizenry in the event of social chaos and other dangerous circumstances.

1) First, the police have no duty to protect you. Google the court cases.

2) The police, almost always, are unable to protect you because they won’t be at the scene when you need them. By definition, you and your families lives will be at stake in a self-defense situation.

3) Events amounting to localized social chaos involving the complete or near total breakdown of civil society do in fact happen; consider the Katrina aftermath, and the Los Angeles riots. Suggesting that such events might happen again does not require speculation or conjecture but rather a simple citation of recent facts.

4) Since when are the authorities always reliable?

– Police corruption and brutality are commonplace. The police — the same police gun control advocates claim are adequate for protection — included murderers in their ranks in New Orleans during Katrina.

– On a national level, the FBI has a record of abuse that is well documented, including, among other things, abuses like illegally tracking leftist anti-war groups in the 60s.

– in 2009, Janet Napolitano’s DHS put out a bulletin that deemed various white conservatives a security threat, including Iraq war vets. That was from DHS folks, not Alex Jones.

– in the summer of 2012, an influential military journal published an essay that depicted Tea Party conservatives as terrorist insurrectionists. The point of the essay was to show that full-blown US military operations on the American homeland might be necessary.

5) Why, exactly, is declining national aggregate crime data a datapoint / trend that suggests an armed citizenry is not necessary? It’s not a fact that supports that claim for at least two reasons.

– There is no guarantee that what happens in the past will continue in the future. This is basic. See the data that shows crime is now going up.

– National aggregates are of dubious value in this context because even if crime is down in the aggregate nationally, crime in select neighborhoods around the country is still bad or could become bad. If you live certain dangerous neighborhoods in New Orleans or Chicago, as a practical matter it’s meaningless if crime is trending down nationally.

6) America is becoming an increasingly militarized police state. I assume I don’t need to recount the ways for this audience? This fact is relevant for at least two reasons:

– why is the government implenting these draconian measures if America is such a safe place as Mr. Jacobs maintains? The rationale behind the Patriot Act, DHS, NDAA, TSA, etc. is that there are dangerous people out there looking to harm Americans. If the existence of all these measures doesn’t show the possibility of real danger that could seriously disrupt social order, then what do they show? An EMP attack on the national power grid would produce mass chaos.

– on the other hand, if America really is a safe place, then the fact that government is engaged in all those militarization activities on the domestic homeland ought to frighten rational people.

7) A wide historical perspective shows that societies deteriorate and break down, and governments become abusive.

8) Our own country was founded in revolution due to government abuse. How many times does it need to be said? Washington and the others were loyal subjects of the crown until they weren’t, that is, until circumstances that were acceptable for most of their lives changed and became unacceptable.

DaveP, many states HAVE such a force–a State Defense Force, though most are unarmed and underfunded. Google “SGAUS” for more information.

I would also say that citizens being armed is not solely for the purpose of resisting a tyrannical government. Rather, to resist the formation of a large standing army, an armed citizenry was the major component of the defense of the nation…against enemies foreign and domestic. A large standing army was–and to a large extent in the world today–and is a primary means of enforcing a tyrannical government’s wishes.

Which is one reason that I find “conservatives” supporting a huge military while quoting the Founders to be ironic…also, supporting the NDAA, the PATRIOT ACT, and countless other actions and laws done by our government that have severely limited our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. These flag-waving, “support-the-troops” “conservatives” are supporting everything the Founders wrote, spoke and fought against. And yet, they do not use their second-amendment arms to fight against this tyranny…instead, they continue to “support the troops” that are quite easily used as a tool for tyranny, willingly pay billions and trillions for the exact military structure our Founders warned against.

DaveP and Daniel, about half of the states do have State Defense Forces, and as would be expected, the role of the SDF varies. Some states look at the SDF as a capable light infantry force to be used if and when the state’s NG is deployed elsewhere. Others look at it as a caretaker or ceremonial force. Some practice marksmanship and field tactics, others say they arent armed and wont be. BTW as a former Infantry Officer, I was always pleased when a new soldier arrived from farm country with fieldcraft and shooting skills derived from hunting. City boys occasionally had those skills, but not consistently. I also wouldnt worry too much about the current US military enforcing a tyrannical government program here…not on a large scale. Sure, some Battalion Commanders might think disarming the citizens in his Area of Operations would be a smart thing, and reduce casualties in his unit, but most would remember their oath of office and balk at a wholesale disarmament. Cant say the same about the DHS, but thats mostly from lack of familiarity.

It’s all well and good to avoid jumping to conclusions, to want to analyze the situation regarding the long, steady increase in gun ownership at the same time as the long, slow, but steady decrease in violent crime.

After all, “correlation is not causation” and all that; so knock yourself out, analyze away, take your time.

Just don’t gloss over one important fact: the correlation we are observing is the exact opposite of “more guns cause more harm”, so that conclusion, at least, should be off the table right from the start.

“I’d feel a lot better about the rhetoric of the strongest proponents of an armed society if they admitted that, law-abiding and responsible though they may be, they’re as vulnerable to temptation as anyone else.”

… it never occurred to me that these folks (or enough of them to matter) were talking about theology; I thought we were having a discussion about how to run a polity with quite a few non-Christians in it, who are themselves taking part in the discussion too, and who are likely to disagree with our theology (or just find it irrelevant.)

Now if all you want is to have a theological discussion, then fine. But if you want to alter how we as a society act–Christians and non-Christians alike–and especially if you think this means that we need to blur the distinction between law-abiding and criminal behavior in regard to firearms, I see a great problem: the “we’re all vulnerable” idea cuts just as strongly against everything the law does in regard to criminal justice: arrest, incarceration, punishment, the whole works. How much of this do you want to do away with to help reinforce the notion that “there but for the grace of God go I”?

I would hold that getting rid of it all, disastrous as it would be for the weak and powerless, at least has some coherence to it (and I have met a few uber-pacifists who would indeed go this far.) But to keep all the rest, including firearms in the hands of the agents of the state, and prohibit them only to the ordinary citizen, sounds to me like garden-variety statism with a little religious veneer.